Popular in Law

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Law

Surrey’s Silence: Subpart F and the Swiss Subsidiary Tax that Never Was

Boston University Steven Dean

Criminal Law

Prosecuting Misdemeanors

American University Jenny Roberts

Human Rights Law

Siege Starvation: A War Crime of Societal Torture

Tufts University Tom Dannenbaum

Corporate Law

Data Valuation and Law

University of Southern California Jordan Barry

International Human Rights Law and Destitution

View more insights in Professional - Law - Human Rights Law

View more figures from University of Manchester

View the page of Luke Graham

Read the Study

· Tools Cite Embed

Luke Graham explores destitution from the perspective of international human rights law and, more specifically, economic, social, and cultural rights.

Image courtesy of interviewee. August 27, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month.

Workspace

Faculti AI is thinking...

< >

Summary
Related Studies
Faculti AI
Key Points
Key Quotes
Translate
Transcript

Export as PDF

This video summarizes a discussion about a book based on a PhD project focusing on the issue of destitution in British society. The author explains that the motivation for the book stems from a rising interest in destitution, defined as an extreme form of poverty crucial for survival, particularly in the context of social transfers.

This video outlines two main factors that motivated the research: the increase in poverty and destitution in the UK and the ineffectiveness of the existing legal framework, which does not adequately address destitution or provide a legal right to be free from it. The author advocates for an exploration of economic, social, and cultural rights as potential mechanisms to address destitution, emphasizing the link between the realization of these rights and survival needs.

The book presents a new definition of destitution, consisting of two components: the rights that include basic survival necessities (food, clothing, housing, water, sanitation) and a defined "destitution threshold." Importantly, the text argues that if individuals must rely on charity for these components, they are deemed destitute.

The author critiques UK austerity measures, arguing that they have fostered a reliance on charity rather than state provision, and thus contributed to increased levels of destitution. The proposed solutions emphasize strengthening the state’s role in providing a social safety net to ensure that economic, social, and cultural rights are met without reliance on charity.

In conclusion, the book stresses the need to reshape social security in a way that prioritizes human rights to combat destitution effectively while simultaneously contributing to the broader realization of these economic and social rights in society.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.475 --> 00:02.925
This book really stemmed from my PhD project,

00:03.425 --> 00:05.965
and so to speak about where the book came from

00:05.965 --> 00:08.085
and its motivations I have to speak about

00:08.395 --> 00:09.805
what motivated the PhD.

00:11.225 --> 00:14.165
And I'll start off by saying that firstly, one

00:14.165 --> 00:16.205
of the key things when I started there

00:16.225 --> 00:20.125
to look towards doing a PhD was that across society

00:20.465 --> 00:23.805
and across civil society, there was renewed interest

00:23.985 --> 00:26.165
and engagement with the idea

00:26.165 --> 00:29.125
of destitution in British society.

00:30.255 --> 00:32.035
And so this is a good point to explain

00:32.415 --> 00:34.315
how destitution has been understood.

00:34.425 --> 00:37.745
Traditionally, traditionally, it's been understood

00:38.085 --> 00:41.705
as an extreme form of poverty, which forces people

00:42.085 --> 00:46.465
to rely on social transfers to meet survival needs.

00:47.125 --> 00:50.745
So it's not just poverty, it's poverty, which relates

00:50.805 --> 00:54.585
to meeting survival needs, the absolute basic essentials

00:54.695 --> 00:57.025
that we need to survive.

00:58.985 --> 01:01.565
And the reason that there was growing interest in this,

01:02.385 --> 01:05.725
and the reason that this came to motivate the work was

01:05.725 --> 01:09.605
because we had a period of growing poverty

01:09.945 --> 01:12.125
and restitution in the United Kingdom.

01:13.725 --> 01:17.465
The second thing that really motivated the work was

01:18.025 --> 01:21.825
a recognition that the existing legal framework

01:22.725 --> 01:24.465
was not very effective

01:24.765 --> 01:28.345
and not very responsive to tackling destitution

01:29.245 --> 01:31.345
in particular human rights.

01:32.345 --> 01:34.205
So the European Convention

01:34.205 --> 01:36.725
of Human Rights does not contain a right

01:36.765 --> 01:39.405
to be free from poverty or destitution.

01:40.245 --> 01:42.795
There is also no such right contained in British

01:43.475 --> 01:45.355
domestic law on the statute book.

01:46.415 --> 01:47.635
And this meant

01:47.825 --> 01:50.515
that the law itself has not been very successful

01:50.615 --> 01:51.995
in tackling destitution.

01:52.655 --> 01:54.235
It means that people can be destitute

01:54.495 --> 01:56.395
and that can be lawful.

01:57.425 --> 01:59.445
And whilst there are some exceptions to this,

02:00.225 --> 02:02.005
the exceptions are quite narrow.

02:02.755 --> 02:05.405
They tend to focus on particular social groups

02:06.025 --> 02:07.725
on the vulnerability of those groups,

02:08.345 --> 02:11.325
and they may allow human rights based claims to succeed.

02:12.065 --> 02:15.685
And so I wanted to explore the potential of economic,

02:15.705 --> 02:17.285
social, and cultural rights,

02:18.095 --> 02:20.605
which are not contained in the European Convention

02:20.605 --> 02:23.525
of Human Rights to tackle destitution.

02:25.205 --> 02:27.305
And so the, these are the two factors, really.

02:27.325 --> 02:28.705
One that destitution was growing

02:29.325 --> 02:32.225
and two, that I wanted to look at an alternative way

02:32.765 --> 02:34.545
of understanding destitution

02:34.725 --> 02:38.905
and mobilizing human rights to, try and address

02:39.125 --> 02:41.145
and to reduce destitution.

02:42.695 --> 02:45.875
And the reason for choosing to focus on economic, social,

02:46.055 --> 02:48.915
and cultural rights is that it was very apparent

02:48.935 --> 02:50.075
to me from the outset,

02:50.295 --> 02:54.435
and it was very obvious that destitution correlates

02:54.735 --> 02:58.075
to the non-real of a range of these rights.

02:59.265 --> 03:01.805
And the reason for this, if I go back to

03:02.585 --> 03:05.005
the very brief definition of destitution

03:05.005 --> 03:07.375
that I gave at the outset, is

03:07.375 --> 03:11.375
that destitution has been very strongly linked to the idea

03:11.955 --> 03:13.015
of survival needs.

03:14.145 --> 03:18.725
And now survival needs such as food, housing,

03:19.615 --> 03:23.385
water, clothing, sanitation,

03:24.195 --> 03:28.385
these needs are contained in the international t on

03:28.625 --> 03:32.305
economic, social and cultural rights within Article 11,

03:32.755 --> 03:33.985
which I'll come to later.

03:35.175 --> 03:38.635
And because of that, I wanted to explore how this provision

03:39.285 --> 03:41.675
could be used to understand destitution,

03:41.945 --> 03:44.755
what the correlation between these, these two

03:45.355 --> 03:48.155
concepts were on the one hand destitution,

03:48.495 --> 03:51.755
and on the one hand, the I chest at International Covenant

03:51.935 --> 03:54.035
on economic, social and cultural rights.

03:54.335 --> 03:57.555
And destitution not been defined from this perspective

03:57.555 --> 04:01.615
before, nor had the link between

04:02.245 --> 04:05.455
this convention and this provision, and these rights

04:05.515 --> 04:09.135
and destitution been explored explicitly.

04:09.795 --> 04:12.975
And so really it was about mobilizing these rights against

04:13.245 --> 04:14.855
destitution to see

04:15.035 --> 04:18.895
how understanding destitution in these ways could allow us

04:19.635 --> 04:22.175
to tackle destitution number one,

04:22.835 --> 04:27.085
but also how foregrounding these rights

04:28.225 --> 04:31.045
in the fights against destitution might contribute

04:31.105 --> 04:34.765
to the greater realization of these rights as well.

04:35.425 --> 04:36.525
And so I set out,

04:36.785 --> 04:37.965
and I was motivated

04:38.025 --> 04:41.325
to understand destitution from the perspective of economic,

04:41.345 --> 04:43.285
social, and culture rights.

04:43.945 --> 04:46.405
And in order to do this, I have to begin

04:46.785 --> 04:49.765
by providing a definition of destitution

04:50.845 --> 04:54.145
within the field of these economic and social rights.

04:55.345 --> 04:56.645
And I start off the book,

04:57.225 --> 05:01.405
and I started off at the beginning of writing the book with

05:02.125 --> 05:05.525
a very bare bones and a very skeletal definition.

05:06.915 --> 05:11.725
I started from the assumption that theoretically

05:12.145 --> 05:15.805
and logically any human rights based definition

05:16.065 --> 05:20.925
of destitution has to have two key parts.

05:22.615 --> 05:25.475
The first of these is the rights that are included,

05:26.305 --> 05:28.485
and I call these the component rights.

05:29.305 --> 05:33.085
And the second of these is the level

05:33.305 --> 05:38.075
of realization of the component rights required

05:38.375 --> 05:40.035
to avoid destitution.

05:40.495 --> 05:43.835
And I call this the destitution threshold.

05:45.645 --> 05:48.145
And it follows from this very basic definition

05:48.145 --> 05:50.705
that if these human rights have realized

05:50.765 --> 05:54.065
to the right standards, destitution cannot occur.

05:55.215 --> 05:57.750
And so the book then builds on that definition,

05:57.750 --> 06:00.245
which is introduced in the first paragraph,

06:01.065 --> 06:04.085
and it does so, through giving a chapter

06:04.505 --> 06:06.885
to the destitution threshold chapter two,

06:07.345 --> 06:10.845
and also a chapter to the component rights chapter three,

06:11.425 --> 06:13.405
and I'll work through each of these in turn now.

06:13.465 --> 06:15.405
So chapter two of the book

06:16.045 --> 06:18.125
examines the destitution threshold.

06:19.625 --> 06:23.485
It establishes a destitution threshold that is

06:24.085 --> 06:26.125
grounded upon pre-existing

06:26.225 --> 06:29.485
and well-established human rights principles.

06:30.305 --> 06:33.285
And I think this is an important point to make at the outset

06:33.285 --> 06:37.925
that I did not set out to argue for new rights

06:38.185 --> 06:42.405
or to argue for new standards or new obligations of rights.

06:43.235 --> 06:44.925
Instead, I set out

06:45.105 --> 06:49.045
to conceptualize restitution within the existing frameworks

06:49.305 --> 06:51.685
of international human rights law.

06:52.425 --> 06:55.445
And with respect to the destitution threshold,

06:55.935 --> 06:59.845
there were three, key questions I had to answer.

07:01.355 --> 07:04.575
And the first of these, and this is a, an important

07:04.715 --> 07:06.055
and a key contribution

07:06.635 --> 07:10.135
of defining destitution from the perspective of economic

07:10.155 --> 07:14.575
and social rights, is the relationship between charity

07:15.115 --> 07:16.135
and destitution.

07:18.025 --> 07:21.425
Historically, destitution has been defined

07:22.125 --> 07:25.545
by reliance on charity to meet survival needs.

07:26.915 --> 07:30.855
The Joseph Roundtree Foundation, whose work 2016

07:31.815 --> 07:35.255
inspired, and motivated this book

07:35.795 --> 07:37.575
and the PhD that it stemmed from.

07:38.245 --> 07:42.055
They also recognize that charity is central to destitution,

07:43.195 --> 07:47.455
but the definition of destitution, which exists in statute

07:48.395 --> 07:51.975
and which only applies to some people in, in our society,

07:53.125 --> 07:54.855
that has a different perspective.

07:55.275 --> 07:59.215
And in that view, charity is not central to destitution.

08:00.355 --> 08:03.455
And so I had to address this question, is charity central

08:03.475 --> 08:05.415
to destitution or is it not?

08:06.245 --> 08:08.025
And from a human rights based perspective

08:08.645 --> 08:10.785
and from the perspective of economic, social,

08:10.785 --> 08:13.065
and culture rights is very clear

08:13.095 --> 08:16.465
that charity is central to destitution.

08:17.175 --> 08:20.145
Even if somebody can access food

08:20.605 --> 08:24.985
and clothing by a charity, they are still destitute.

08:25.645 --> 08:28.585
And this is an important point that I will return to,

08:29.045 --> 08:30.105
shortly.

08:31.985 --> 08:36.445
The second question that I had to address was whether

08:36.465 --> 08:40.685
or not somebody is destitute if they realize

08:41.065 --> 08:44.445
and they can attain some of the component rights,

08:44.745 --> 08:46.005
but not others.

08:46.825 --> 08:50.325
So for example, somebody might be able to access food,

08:50.945 --> 08:55.045
but they're homeless or they are, able

08:55.185 --> 08:56.445
to have housing,

08:56.665 --> 08:58.365
but they're struggling to access

08:58.915 --> 09:02.365
food on a regular basis without help from charity.

09:03.625 --> 09:06.125
And the finding in the book is that

09:07.855 --> 09:11.075
if book one of the component rights is not realized

09:11.455 --> 09:14.875
to the destitution threshold, if somebody can only

09:15.495 --> 09:16.955
access food, for example,

09:16.955 --> 09:19.435
through charity, they are destitute.

09:19.655 --> 09:20.955
So under the union approach,

09:21.095 --> 09:23.355
an individual is destitute if any one

09:23.355 --> 09:26.155
or more of their component rights is not realized

09:26.695 --> 09:28.955
to the destitution threshold.

09:29.695 --> 09:31.595
And this is important because

09:31.625 --> 09:36.155
otherwise, we, we would be, making a judgment.

09:36.985 --> 09:39.795
We'd be counting points so people can access this, right?

09:39.815 --> 09:41.515
But not this right and not this right,

09:41.815 --> 09:43.195
but they can access this, right?

09:43.935 --> 09:47.395
And in doing that, we will be making it far more difficult

09:47.455 --> 09:50.275
to determine, whether or not somebody is

09:50.775 --> 09:52.035
or is not destitute.

09:52.875 --> 09:55.895
But the second reason why this is important is the

09:56.115 --> 09:57.935
interrelationship between rights.

09:58.555 --> 10:01.495
And this is the idea that rights are linked

10:02.155 --> 10:04.615
and that if we are unable to enjoy one, right,

10:04.885 --> 10:08.015
that might hinder our enjoyment of other rights.

10:09.845 --> 10:14.025
And so then beyond the role of charity, beyond whether

10:14.045 --> 10:18.825
or not one or more rights need not be realized, the final

10:19.425 --> 10:23.185
question in relation to the destitution threshold is whether

10:23.325 --> 10:27.225
or not the destitution threshold is universally applicable.

10:27.655 --> 10:31.825
Does it apply to all states and all context in the world?

10:33.195 --> 10:34.575
And this is a difficult question

10:34.575 --> 10:36.815
because, destitution like poverty

10:37.545 --> 10:40.815
might manifest differently in different contexts.

10:41.315 --> 10:45.695
So a country where, the poverty line is very low,

10:45.875 --> 10:49.405
for example, $2 a day will be very different

10:49.905 --> 10:51.885
to a country such as the United Kingdom,

10:52.035 --> 10:54.845
whether it's poverty threshold, according

10:54.865 --> 10:59.085
to some metrics is closer to 16,000 pounds per year,

10:59.335 --> 11:02.125
which is far higher than $2 a day, which is

11:02.835 --> 11:04.965
less than a thousand dollars per year.

11:06.725 --> 11:11.425
And in looking at this, the book, seeks to propose

11:12.765 --> 11:15.305
an approach which has a universal minimum,

11:16.105 --> 11:19.455
which is at the same time supplemented by a context

11:20.615 --> 11:21.695
specific measure.

11:22.085 --> 11:24.815
There's a minimum, the minimum core obligation

11:24.875 --> 11:28.695
of economic social culture rights, which applies everywhere,

11:29.475 --> 11:31.175
and it can never go below that.

11:31.795 --> 11:35.095
But then beyond that, the book seeks to propose a way

11:35.795 --> 11:38.975
to determine a context specific

11:39.585 --> 11:41.015
level of destitution.

11:41.555 --> 11:44.935
So for example, this might be that if we are

11:45.195 --> 11:48.655
to define destitution in, monetary terms, that

11:48.685 --> 11:53.015
that level can be influenced by the amount of money it costs

11:53.145 --> 11:55.485
to realize the component rights in

11:55.485 --> 11:57.205
that particular jurisdiction.

11:58.525 --> 12:02.235
And so in summary, we can

12:02.895 --> 12:06.315
define the destitution threshold as having

12:07.295 --> 12:11.845
number one, that we cannot access rights via a charity

12:13.165 --> 12:16.145
if we access rights via a charity or destitute.

12:17.035 --> 12:20.935
And number two, that we can have this destitution pressure,

12:20.935 --> 12:24.695
which has a universal minimum, but also can be adapted

12:25.235 --> 12:28.215
and increase to higher standard in states

12:28.215 --> 12:30.015
where it is appropriate to do so.

12:30.965 --> 12:34.265
And if an individual cannot realize their component rights

12:34.365 --> 12:37.065
to that destitution threshold without charity,

12:37.655 --> 12:39.385
then they are destitute.

12:40.775 --> 12:43.315
And this very naturally brings us then to the second part

12:43.315 --> 12:45.595
of this definition, the component rights

12:46.935 --> 12:51.675
and identifying these specific rights was a key aim

12:51.935 --> 12:54.115
and a key objective of the book.

12:54.775 --> 12:58.635
And the reason for this is that in identifying specific

12:59.055 --> 13:03.955
and concrete rights, we can establish the obligations

13:04.815 --> 13:08.235
and the specific duties which flow from those rights.

13:09.315 --> 13:13.955
And there were two key,

13:15.285 --> 13:19.355
parameters when determining what these rights should be.

13:21.515 --> 13:26.105
Firstly, these component rights must align

13:26.135 --> 13:29.185
with established understandings of destitution.

13:30.185 --> 13:34.965
And so we, I synthesize existing definitions of destitution.

13:35.445 --> 13:38.285
I looked at what was common to them, what was different

13:38.285 --> 13:40.965
to them, and then I used,

13:41.965 --> 13:44.445
existing international human rights law,

13:44.665 --> 13:46.685
to draw parallels to existing rights.

13:48.525 --> 13:52.225
And the second key parameter was

13:52.225 --> 13:55.465
that component rights are distinguished.

13:56.445 --> 13:59.455
What is central to being a component, right, is

13:59.455 --> 14:03.855
that the non realization will always result in the

14:03.855 --> 14:05.255
experience of destitution.

14:06.155 --> 14:09.675
And this second parameter is really important in narrowing

14:09.775 --> 14:11.395
how we understand destitution

14:11.665 --> 14:15.155
because the, the alternative view would be to say

14:15.155 --> 14:16.435
that the normalization

14:16.655 --> 14:20.195
of many more rights would correlate to destitution.

14:20.695 --> 14:23.035
But, but that is not the view that I advocate for

14:23.055 --> 14:26.155
and I argue for in the book.

14:26.435 --> 14:28.475
I argue that in order to keep this link

14:28.535 --> 14:31.635
to existing understandings of destitution, we have

14:31.635 --> 14:33.875
to have a narrow number

14:34.055 --> 14:36.435
of rights which are component rights.

14:37.755 --> 14:39.775
And so guided by these two principles,

14:40.815 --> 14:42.695
I identified Article 11

14:42.915 --> 14:45.655
and Article nine of the international Covenant on economic,

14:45.855 --> 14:49.375
social and cultural rights as containing

14:49.955 --> 14:51.015
the component rights

14:51.385 --> 14:54.565
of a human rights based definition of destitution.

14:55.745 --> 14:59.125
So Article 11 of the international covenant on economic,

14:59.125 --> 15:02.645
social and cultural rights recognizes the rights of everyone

15:02.645 --> 15:06.205
to an adequate standard of living, including

15:07.405 --> 15:10.315
adequate food, one of the component rights,

15:11.155 --> 15:14.275
adequate clothing, another adequate housing,

15:15.455 --> 15:16.745
another component, right?

15:17.405 --> 15:20.625
And then also the right to the continuous improvement

15:20.625 --> 15:21.625
of living conditions.

15:22.635 --> 15:25.415
And this final right, the continuous improvement

15:25.415 --> 15:27.015
of living conditions is important

15:27.805 --> 15:31.415
because this allows the definition of destitution

15:31.415 --> 15:34.095
that I propose to, advance

15:34.435 --> 15:38.535
and to develop over time as de destitution,

15:39.195 --> 15:41.775
as it manifests in society, changes over time.

15:42.995 --> 15:47.135
We have to recognize also that article 11 of the I fair,

15:47.355 --> 15:48.655
the to adequate water

15:48.655 --> 15:49.535
and the right to adequate

15:49.535 --> 15:50.975
sanitation have been read into this.

15:51.035 --> 15:55.335
So these really are the goods that people have to be able

15:55.335 --> 15:59.255
to access to avoid destitution, food, clothing, housing,

15:59.865 --> 16:01.575
water, and sanitation.

16:03.395 --> 16:07.175
And then I argue that also we have to look at Article nine,

16:07.355 --> 16:08.815
the Right to Social Security.

16:09.115 --> 16:12.335
And this is another key argument in the book, that the right

16:12.355 --> 16:15.315
to social security at a level

16:16.175 --> 16:20.315
to realize the component rights, is required,

16:20.625 --> 16:24.315
that the right social security should be a safety net

16:24.455 --> 16:26.315
to realize the component rights.

16:27.255 --> 16:30.235
And I argue that these should be the component rights

16:30.235 --> 16:33.075
because the adequate realization

16:33.215 --> 16:36.995
of these rights will always prevent destitution.

16:38.045 --> 16:41.705
And therefore we can argue that if people can access food,

16:42.345 --> 16:44.815
clothing, housing, water,

16:44.995 --> 16:49.895
and sanitation to the standards required

16:49.955 --> 16:53.175
to the destitution threshold without charity,

16:54.085 --> 16:55.655
they are not destitute

16:56.235 --> 16:58.775
or already, I've established that a key part

16:58.775 --> 17:02.775
of the destitution threshold is reliance on charity.

17:04.485 --> 17:07.465
If individuals can only access a component rights via

17:07.465 --> 17:10.825
charity, then they are destitute.

17:11.485 --> 17:13.665
And this is a key contribution of the book.

17:13.695 --> 17:16.385
It's a key contribution of defining

17:17.175 --> 17:19.785
destitution from the perspective of economic, social,

17:20.125 --> 17:21.305
and culture rights.

17:22.095 --> 17:23.995
And this contribution is important

17:24.705 --> 17:29.035
because austerity in the UK was designed

17:29.735 --> 17:34.155
to replace the state provision of a social safety net

17:34.745 --> 17:38.115
with charitable provision of a social safety net.

17:38.935 --> 17:41.955
And for this reason, I argue in chapter four of the book,

17:42.375 --> 17:46.995
the austerity in the UK was destitution inducing

17:47.455 --> 17:48.915
in its design.

17:49.665 --> 17:52.765
Now, I, I'm not arguing that it was intended to

17:53.425 --> 17:54.605
create destitution.

17:55.345 --> 17:57.405
I'm arguing that with the benefit of hindsight.

17:57.425 --> 18:00.565
And that in imply, and that in applying this definition

18:00.565 --> 18:04.565
of destitution, we can categorize austerity as being

18:05.235 --> 18:07.125
destitution inducing.

18:08.505 --> 18:11.685
It caused people to rely on charity

18:12.465 --> 18:13.845
to access food.

18:13.905 --> 18:17.805
In particular the explosion of food banks, clothing as well,

18:18.515 --> 18:21.245
housing or shelter and so forth.

18:21.325 --> 18:23.605
Increasingly, people need charity

18:24.145 --> 18:27.845
to access these component rights and these survival needs.

18:28.265 --> 18:31.045
In the uk. Austerity calls this

18:32.025 --> 18:34.205
and the impact of this has not gone away.

18:34.385 --> 18:36.245
We see this now even today,

18:36.275 --> 18:39.205
even though allegedly austerity has ended.

18:40.625 --> 18:45.325
Now austerity in the UK was often simply called cuts,

18:45.865 --> 18:47.325
and they have been a key feature

18:47.705 --> 18:51.565
of social security policy throughout most of 2000

18:51.825 --> 18:54.445
and tens in the uk.

18:54.535 --> 18:56.005
There there's a range of changes.

18:56.245 --> 18:58.445
I, I'll only give a few of them because there's so many,

18:58.465 --> 19:02.325
but there were changes to tax credits, changes to benefits

19:02.625 --> 19:04.245
for private renters

19:04.305 --> 19:07.885
and other changes to housing benefits, introduction

19:07.885 --> 19:11.285
of the bedroom tax introduction of a benefit cap,

19:12.165 --> 19:13.805
limiting the increase of benefits.

19:13.825 --> 19:16.765
And a key and an important change was the introduction

19:16.985 --> 19:18.645
of universal credit.

19:19.995 --> 19:23.855
But the important point without going into detail on these

19:23.855 --> 19:27.495
changes because we could speak to this for many hours

19:27.835 --> 19:31.975
and many days, is that all of these policies were designed

19:32.675 --> 19:34.215
on an assumption

19:35.195 --> 19:37.895
and a view that envisioned

19:38.405 --> 19:40.455
that these will be supplemented.

19:40.515 --> 19:43.735
But by the idea of the big society.

19:45.755 --> 19:49.655
The big society was absolutely central to

19:50.375 --> 19:54.315
and was a guiding principle of the coalition government

19:54.315 --> 19:58.755
of 2010 to 2000 fifteen's social welfare policies.

20:00.215 --> 20:02.755
It was underpinned by the idea

20:03.345 --> 20:05.235
that the state is bad

20:05.775 --> 20:10.435
and anything else, charities, volunteers is better.

20:12.295 --> 20:15.075
The big society was about rolling back the state.

20:15.095 --> 20:16.875
It was about the state retreating

20:17.855 --> 20:20.915
and filling the gaps left by it by charity.

20:21.425 --> 20:24.875
Therefore it promoted the delivery of public services

20:26.285 --> 20:27.505
by charity

20:28.165 --> 20:31.745
and the voluntary sector, it promoted the provision

20:31.745 --> 20:35.425
of the social safety net by charity and the public sector.

20:36.615 --> 20:40.115
And therefore, as I argue in the book, this was designed

20:40.215 --> 20:42.475
to foster a reliance on charity.

20:43.825 --> 20:46.845
And because of this, because of reliance on charity to

20:46.845 --> 20:51.005
Meet the component rights is desti is destitution.

20:51.985 --> 20:54.045
It follows the, the big society

20:54.745 --> 20:59.525
and austerity they led to higher rates

20:59.585 --> 21:01.565
of destitution in the United Kingdom.

21:02.885 --> 21:04.225
And this is important finding

21:04.225 --> 21:07.665
because number one, it suggests that if we are

21:07.665 --> 21:11.065
to have future austerity, it should be designed

21:11.065 --> 21:14.105
with this idea in mind, this idea that if we do not want

21:14.105 --> 21:17.985
to cause the restitution, we cannot rely on austerity,

21:18.435 --> 21:20.545
which is designed with charity in mind.

21:21.565 --> 21:23.865
But importantly, it also shows

21:23.935 --> 21:26.385
that government policies have the potential

21:26.725 --> 21:29.385
to cause destitution, which would suggest

21:29.655 --> 21:34.025
that they have the potential to also, fix

21:34.575 --> 21:37.585
destitution to prevent destitution from

21:37.585 --> 21:39.225
occurring in the first place.

21:39.645 --> 21:42.945
And so this human rights understanding of destitution,

21:42.945 --> 21:46.105
which is proposed in the book, can be used

21:46.245 --> 21:49.225
to inform future austerity policies.

21:49.475 --> 21:52.825
Human rights based understanding of destitution can be used

21:52.825 --> 21:56.025
to inform future austerity policies.

21:56.845 --> 22:00.225
And the book has several key conclusions in regard to this.

22:01.085 --> 22:03.745
The first is the definition

22:03.805 --> 22:06.665
of destitution grounded in economic, social,

22:07.005 --> 22:08.025
and culture rights.

22:08.965 --> 22:10.545
It suggests specific rights

22:10.965 --> 22:12.225
and suggests an approach

22:12.365 --> 22:16.345
to determining the destitution threshold of these rights,

22:16.345 --> 22:18.585
both generally, but also in the uk.

22:20.445 --> 22:23.865
The second key conclusion is that charity is central

22:24.005 --> 22:26.425
to the experience of destitution.

22:27.285 --> 22:29.465
And the third key conclusion is that

22:29.485 --> 22:32.865
by fostering a reliance on charity as a social safety net,

22:33.335 --> 22:35.665
austerity has caused destitution.

22:36.625 --> 22:38.525
Now these conclusions come together

22:39.185 --> 22:40.805
to influence recommendations

22:40.805 --> 22:42.645
because what this suggests is that

22:43.305 --> 22:46.965
the social security system should be designed so

22:46.965 --> 22:48.565
that people do not need charity

22:48.745 --> 22:50.365
to access the component rights.

22:51.155 --> 22:56.085
This is the primary way through which changes could be made

22:56.145 --> 22:57.885
to prevent restitution in the uk

22:58.355 --> 23:01.525
because so many people in the UK are destitute

23:01.525 --> 23:02.925
because they rely on charity.

23:04.085 --> 23:07.465
If we negate that need for a reliance on charity,

23:08.325 --> 23:11.625
we reduce the levels of destitution significantly.

23:12.125 --> 23:13.505
And so what are the recommendations

23:13.505 --> 23:15.105
that flow from these conclusions?

23:15.735 --> 23:18.305
Firstly, it should be the state

23:19.245 --> 23:22.385
and not charity, which provides a social safety

23:22.525 --> 23:24.225
net in our society.

23:24.965 --> 23:28.465
It should be the state that ensures that people's economic,

23:28.465 --> 23:32.025
social and cultural rights are realized when they're unable

23:32.025 --> 23:33.145
to do so for themselves.

23:34.805 --> 23:36.425
And in order to achieve this,

23:37.125 --> 23:40.345
the social security system in the UK should be designed

23:40.695 --> 23:45.405
with the realization of the component rights in mind.

23:46.885 --> 23:50.825
The social security policies must be altered to ensure

23:51.255 --> 23:53.225
that welfare benefits act

23:53.225 --> 23:55.225
as a safety net against restitution.

23:57.125 --> 24:00.425
And through this way, if we were to achieve this economic,

24:00.425 --> 24:02.425
social and cultural rights could serve

24:02.485 --> 24:06.385
to address restitution through expanding the level

24:06.405 --> 24:09.345
of protection offered by the social security system.

24:10.725 --> 24:13.185
It should be designed to ensure the realization

24:13.405 --> 24:15.665
of an adequate standard of living.

24:17.725 --> 24:20.385
But at the same time, if we were to foreground economic

24:20.405 --> 24:23.265
and social cultural rights in this way, we would also

24:24.115 --> 24:27.025
contribute to the greater realization of economic,

24:27.025 --> 24:28.705
social, and cultural rights.

24:28.705 --> 24:32.185
So not only do we tackle destitution,

24:32.685 --> 24:34.705
but we improve adherence to economic,

24:35.045 --> 24:37.025
social and cultural rights.

24:37.885 --> 24:42.785
And so to draw towards, an ending today, I I'd like

24:42.785 --> 24:45.105
to draw attention to how I begin the final

24:45.105 --> 24:46.145
paragraph of the book.

24:46.945 --> 24:49.345
I think it makes sense to end with those words

24:49.885 --> 24:53.305
and I quote Strengthening recasting

24:53.445 --> 24:57.505
and reconceptualizing our social security system so

24:57.505 --> 24:58.945
that it is informed by

24:59.325 --> 25:01.825
and adheres to both the right

25:01.825 --> 25:03.345
to an adequate standard of living.

25:03.965 --> 25:08.105
And the right to social security is a necessary evolution

25:08.565 --> 25:11.105
to address restitution in the United Kingdom.

Faculti AI can make mistakes